Of Adobe, Lime, and Cement: The Preservation History of the San José
de Tumacácori Mission Church (Part II - Structures)

Introduction

Spanish colonial mission church of San José
de Tumacácori.

This is the second of a multi-part series that outlines the preservation
history of the mission complex at Tumacácori National Historic Park.
The first part of this report provides historical
background and focuses on methodologies and experiments to preserve specific
types of fabric and features of the mission complex. The third
part describes research into the history of the church's gardens.

The NPS has faced a number of challenges over the years in conserving
and protecting adobe and other fabrics used in the construction of the mission,
and challenges to maintaining the architectural elements of the building.
The successes and failures of preservation approaches are part of the preservation
history. Several times, removing effects of earlier preservation efforts
has resulted in unanticipated discoveries of details left by the original
builders, such as hand and foot holds left in the dome of the nave, or traces
of an earlier choir loft. This second part recounts efforts made to preserve
specific parts of the mission.

Restoration of Structural Elements of the Tumacácori Church

Nave

Nave floor before and after excavation by Noon in 1919. Four vertical
feet of debris covered the floor.

Concentrated efforts to preserve the nave interior began when Frank “Boss”
Pinkley, the first Tumacácori superintendent, arrived in 1918. Monument
employee A. S. Noon cleared the nave floor of debris and uncovered the remains
of the original roof and façade pediment. He removed debris four feet
thick covering the original church floor, only to find it severely damaged
by treasure hunters. There was little evidence of the church roof, but Noon
found large fragments of plaster and the plaster ball that held the cross
on the top of the façade pediment.

This was not a systematic archeological investigation and Noon did not
screen the dirt for artifacts. There is no documentation of Noon’s
excavations, therefore we know little about the archeology of the nave.
Noon’s excavation is an example of how the archeology of Tumacácori
has been motivated by preservation/restoration activities.

Heating features discovered by Beaubien in 1934 in Area 37A. Beaubien
called the horseshoe shaped feature the retort and the square feature
the furnace. Photo taken before the features were removed in 1970.

At Tumacácori, archeological work often preceeds preservation treatment.
In the past, archeological sites or features were impacted or removed during
preservation treatments. Work done in 1970 to lessen moisture retention
in the east wall of the nave is an example of preservation treatments that
did not adequately consider the effect on buried archeological resources.
In 1970, plastic PVC sheeting was placed along the base of the nave walls
in an attempt at directing subsurface moisture away from the structure.
During placement of the plastic sheeting archeological features first identified
by Paul Beaubien in 1934 were re-excavated, photographed, and completely
removed.1 The features, located near the east wall of the nave
between the sacristy and the bell tower, are within a convento
work area designated Area 37a.

Nave Roof

Pinkley’s first major task at Tumacácori was to re-roof the
nave to preserve the interior. There were no photographs or drawings of
the original church roof, so he had to use remaining architectural evidence
and knowledge of local craftsmanship. The first phase began with the rebuilding
of the upper portions of the nave walls with adobe bricks. Pinkley manufactured
many of the bricks used during restoration. One of the most difficult bricks
to manufacture was the cornice brick. These challenges honed Pinkley’s
knowledge of Tumacácori building materials and techniques.

At first, Pinkley was unsure about the type of wood used in the original
roof. The original roof beams were probably re-used in an 1860s ranch house
built either by the Lowe or the King family. The building was torn down
and burned during railroad construction. Seventy years after removal from
the mission, Noon recovered the “recently” burned end of a beam
near the railroad. He identified the wood as pine and believed that the
beam was from the church due to “the approximate size of the rafters
[original beam], and, by measuring the partially burnt ashes on the ground,
to get its length, which checked with the width of the nave of the church.”2
Pinkley now knew he needed large pines. Twenty-six pine trees measuring
18.5 feet long, with an average diameter of about 14 inches, were hauled
25 miles from the Santa Rita Mountains and squared with an adze.

Pinkley devised scaffolding and a tackle method for getting the huge beams
up and over the nave walls without damaging the church or workers. When
the beams were finally placed, he coated them with crude oil diluted with
kerosene to make them look old. Once the primary beams were secured, dried
ocotillo stems were laid across and topped with grass, mud, and lime plaster.
Cement was added to the lime plaster, as the crew had difficulty making
the lime strong enough. Rafters and roof boards were then placed, and the
space between rafters filled with straw.

Pinkley completed the first roof reconstruction in 1921. After 1921, work
on the roof consisted of the repair of a major leak in 1944 and total roof
replacement in 1947 and 1980. Documented partial roof replacements occurred
in 1978, 1990, and 1998. Partial replacements consisted of waterproofing
or repairing the top of the roof. Since Pinkley’s reconstruction,
different types of synthetic materials have been used to waterproof and
seal the roof.

The Church Floor

Fired adobe brick floor in the convento, 1934.

Letters between Pinkley and Noon suggest that the original church floor was
hard packed adobe covered in six inches of lime plaster, but it was in bad
condition when Noon investigated in 1919.3 Remnants of the floor
plaster show that the floor had a distinctive red burnished surface, but it
was not made of fired adobe brick. The present brick floor, in a basket weave
pattern, was laid in 1939. This pattern is based on the remains of convento
floors uncovered during Paul Beaubien’s excavations in 1934-1935. The
steps leading from the nave to the sanctuary were restored in 1921. In 1957,
the bricks of the present floor were sealed with Duocrex, resulting in a glossy
but damage-resistant church floor. This was done to slow visitor impacts to
the floor.

The Church Doors

After clearing the floor, Noon hung the church doors
. He wrote to Pinkley that he was “having the doors and window [baptistery]
made at Roy & Titcomb’s [in Nogales] and when finished will go
back and put them in place.”4 It is unclear how the design
was chosen, but it may have been based on San Xavier del Bac. The present
church doors were installed in 1973. They were made by Rene Menard of Nogales
and designed after the front doors at San Ignacio, Sonora.5 The
1919 doors are stored at the NPS Western Archeological and Conservation
Center in Tucson as historic artifacts.

The Church Façade

Mission church in 1889. This photo was used by Pinkley (1921) as a reference
for the reconstruction of the façade pediment. Photo taken by George Roskruge.

The façade is the south facing decorated church front. It has three
parts: the lower face consisting of the columns, niches, and entrance arch;
the second story columns, niches and window; and the pediment. The facade’s
architectural style shows Spanish and Moorish influences, similar to other
Kino missions.

Dale King reconstructed the lower columns of the façade in 1946.
Originally, the whole façade was painted. According to Pinkley the
background plaster was a “yellow tending towards pink.”6
The columns were red, with yellow capitals (top of column), and had some
black markings of uncertain design that were barely visible in 1921. White
bands on the façade columns give the appearance of solid stone construction.
This treatment was also given to the top of the main entrance doorway, which
is painted and incised to look like stone block. The four niches of the
façade were painted blue and corbels extend from the niches, forming
shelves for santos. The niche shelves have characteristic “spear-head”
decorations that occur elsewhere in the church and throughout the Pimeria
Alta.

The Façade Pediment

The façade pediment is the upper curved false front, which extends
vertically approximately seven feet from the roofline. It makes the church
appear larger and barrel-vaulted. The pediment seen today was rebuilt by
Pinkley in 1921, out of fired adobe bricks, cement, and lime plaster. The
original pediment probably fell in the 1890s. Pinkley reconstructed the
pediment based on the Roskruge photos, taken in 1889, before the original
pediment fell.

A ball holds a cross at the top center of the curved pediment. Noon recovered
a fragment of the original ball on the pediment during excavation of the
church floor in 1919 that was reused during restoration of the pediment.
Pinkley painted the original half of the ball white. Today, the upper half
of the ball is still painted white.

The Choir Loft

Close up of the choir loft ca. 1890.

Photos of the church interior taken before 1893 show an intact choir loft.
Based on available evidence, the choir loft fell sometime between 1892 and
1907. By circa 1905, the choir loft was no longer intact. Clemensen believes
the choir loft fell in 1906.7 Tomas Alegria thought the choir loft
collapsed in 1901, when the Montez family living at the mission hung a swing
for their son from the arch.8 However, geologist William Blake
visited the mission in 1905 and 1907, and notes from his 1907 visit suggest
that the choir loft fell sometime between 1905 and 1907; presumably due to
the combined impact of the 1887 earthquake and its use as a swing support.9

Evidence from architectural features on the interior of the east wall suggests
that the choir loft in historic photos of the church was the second choir
loft built. Tovrea and Pinkley found evidence of wall features from an earlier
choir loft. The choir loft was half built by 1823, but was torn down and
a smaller choir loft was constructed.10 Perhaps the first loft
was structurally unsound or could not be completed as planned.

The Pulpit

The pulpit before restoration in 1922-1923. The photo shows the wall
markings from the original pulpit floor. Pinkley used the marks to build
an accurate pulpit floor.

Noon uncovered remnants of the wooden frame of the pulpit when he excavated
the church floor in 1919.11 Pinkley partially restored the pulpit
between 1923 and 1924, based on the existing architectural evidence and on
pulpits of churches in Sonora. All that was left of the pulpit at the time
of restoration was a few marks in the wall plaster. The pulpit is only partially
restored. In 1978, a plugged doorway was found during the removal of cement
on the eastern wall. Chambers suggests that this doorway may have been the
pulpit doorway before the church was modified from its original cruciform
design.12

The Sanctuary

Preservation of the painted plasters in the sanctuary is a high priority,
and has focused on painted plasters of the interior walls and dome. Most
of the interior sanctuary plasters are original. Unfortunately, the sanctuary
floor, walls, and altar have been targets for treasure hunters, who have
damaged most of the original sanctuary features.13

Noon began work in the sanctuary in 1919. He plastered some exposed bricks
and grouted eroded original plaster edges on the interior of the north wall.
Noon also restored the main altar using sun-dried and fired adobe bricks.
In 1921, Pinkley filled a large hole in the north sanctuary wall with adobe
bricks where treasure hunters broke through in the area of a large statue
niche. This hole is visible in many early photos of the sanctuary.

The sanctuary’s interior plaster was repaired sporadically from 1928
to 1949. Most of this work is undocumented, so there are few details. NPS
employee Charles Steen and Harvard conservator J. Rutherford Gettens cleaned
and stabilized plaster intermittently until 1952. After 1952, the next major
project focusing on plaster preservation in the sanctuary began in 1972
and lasted until 1982.14 By 1982, plaster edges and holes were
being patched with synthetic materials, including poly-vinyl acetate. Plasters
were cleaned with ammonium carbonate. From 1982 to 2002, work on the plasters
in the sanctuary interior continued, and today we are still working to slow
plaster loss.

The Sanctuary Dome Interior

The sanctuary dome is one of the defining features of the church and was
frequently described by early visitors to the mission.15 A lantern
or cupola consisting of five columns capped by a dome sits atop the sanctuary
dome. A cross is attached to the top of the lantern. The dome protects the
sanctuary and creates an impressive space above the main altar.

In the past, the dome has frequently leaked. When water leaks into the
dome interior through exterior cracks, the trapped moisture deteriorates
the painted plaster, causing detachment and flaking. Once the interior becomes
wet, it can take a long time to dry.

There are no documented repairs to the dome interior plaster before 1949.
Plaster conservators from the U. S., Mexico, and Europe have worked to save
the painted plasters.16 In 1982, a large-scale inter-disciplinary
study of painted plaster erosion was initiated to determine preservation
methods for stabilizing eroding the painted plasters.17 Loss
was occurring at an alarming rate and park staff noticed the continual slow
flaking of plaster. Conservation of the dome interior continued for almost
20 years, culminating in the completion of a large documentation and preservation
project in 2002.

The Removal of the Northwest Pendentive Plaster of the Dome

The sanctuary dome is a pendentive dome. Pendentive domes enable the transfer
of the total load of the dome to the four corners of the building, so that
only the four corners need to be reinforced. Each of the four pendentives
helps distribute the weight of the dome. Pendentives, and the painting of
pendentives, go back to the 5th century B.C.18

All four of the pendentives supporting the sanctuary dome were etched and
painted. Over the years, the plaster of the northwest pendentive eroded
much faster than the other dome pendentives, primarily due to moisture seeping
through the dome exterior plaster. In 1977, the etched and painted plaster
from the northwest pendentive was removed to save it from irreparable damage.
The plaster was removed by the NPS Western Archeological and Conservation
Center and is currently stored at their facility in Tucson.19

The Sanctuary Dome Exterior

The first repairs to the dome exterior were completed by Pinkley in 1921.
The dome, the dome lantern, and the upper moldings were heavily eroded.
Pinkley repaired the dome apron moldings, the lantern columns and dome,
replastered the dome, and placed a new cross on the lantern cupola. He placed
the cross on the dome facing east-west, when the façade pediment
cross faces north-south. Sometime after 1922, the dome cross was repositioned
to face north-south, in the same direction as the pediment cross. Pinkley
does not mention the techniques and materials used in the first dome repairs
but he apparently used the same mixture of lime and Portland cement that
he used on other areas of the mission. Pinkley mixed cement with lime because
it was more durable than plain lime.

Sanctuary Dome in 1961, before stabilization
by Richert (RSU). Problems included: 1) Cracked patches of modern cement,
2) small furrows and cracks in original lime mortar, 3) white patches
of modern lime-cement plaster (Pinkley 1921) and 4) eroded tar roofing.

After Pinkley’s work in 1921, only minor repairs were made to the
dome and lantern. In 1961, Roland Richert of the Ruins Stabilization Unit
began work on the eroded dome exterior. The dome had several different types
of eroded plasters and the lantern was crumbling. Richert scraped all loose
plaster off and removed the modern cement patches to reveal the underlying
lime mortar base.20 The dome was then painted with a mixture
of Daraweld and water and deeper holes filled with bonding cement. Daraweld
is an acrylic polymer bonding agent still in use at other parks. The bonding
cement was a mixture of Trinity white water-proof cement, sand, Daraweld
(acrylic-polymer bonding agent), and water. The entire dome and apron was
covered with an eighth-inch coating of bonding cement. After 1961, numerous
coats of cement bonding paints and latex paints were used to seal hairline
cracks in the dome exterior plaster. These coats added weight to the dome
and trapped moisture, increasing the erosion of interior plasters.

During work on the dome, Richert noticed that the lantern is positioned
slightly off center, 6 to 8 inches to the north of the dome’s apex.
Richert hypothesizes that “perhaps the twelve steps leading up the
south side of the dome, and the slightly offset lantern, in addition to
serving the practical purpose of reaching the feature more easily for making
repairs, were so placed to achieve better esthetic balance, i.e., such placement
had the artistic effect of breaking the monotonous line of the dome.”21

The next major project on the dome took place in 1979.22 The
deterioration and removal of the pendentive plaster in 1977 was the first
indication of moisture problems inside the dome. All previous stabilization
materials were stripped from the dome exterior down to fired adobe bricks.
Once the underlying fired adobe bricks were exposed, voids were filled and
the surface was covered with 2 to 2.5 inches of lime plaster. After plastering,
two coats of lime white wash were applied. The white wash consisted of 8
gallons of lime paste mixed with 10 gallons of water, mixed with 12 pounds
of table salt and 6 ounces of powdered alum in 4 ounces of hot water. After
30 minutes, 1 quart of molasses and 12 ounces of formaldehyde were mixed
into the salt and alum mixture. The mix was then added to the lime and water
mix. This was a unique mix for white wash, and five years later the white
wash turned yellow.23

During the 1979 dome work, cement on the dome apron was removed, exposing
deep cracks in the fired adobe bricks near the base of the dome. Weathered
bricks were removed to a depth of 1 foot on the north, south, and west sides
of the dome apron. Cracks were filled with lime mortar and burnt adobe brick
pieces and the areas between the base of the dome and apron edge filled
with fired adobe bricks laid in lime mortar. The dome apron was given two
coats of lime plaster and the western sanctuary canale repaired.

Tumacácori received higher than normal rainfall in 1983 and 1984.
By spring 1983, the dome was leaking badly. At one point, the water was
literally running through a major crack in the southern portion of the dome.
Historic architect Tony Crosby inspected the mission in April 1984, and
suggested a major evaluation of damage to the interior plasters. Conservator
Paul Swartzbaum of ICCROM was contacted for assistance. Swartzbaum suggested
that the white wash being applied to the dome be burnished rather than just
brushed onto the surface and a silicon sealer should be sprayed over the
dome after burnishing. The NPS Regional Office did not approve the silicone
spray, since it would trap moisture in the dome. Staff then tried burnishing
the white wash with table spoons, but the dome continued to leak and interior
plasters eroded at an alarming rate.24

Finally, in 1985, the dome was coated with lime plaster and painted with
four coats of a vinyl-acrylic-latex exterior masonry paint called Vin-L-Tex.
The application of the paint was supposed to be a temporary measure, but
it seemed to work, so it was continued until 1989. The dome appeared to
be shedding water, but the interior never dried after the large leak in
1983. The trapped moisture was still degrading the painted interior plasters.
In addition, 12 pounds of table salt in the white wash accelerated plaster
erosion, and may have caused the loss of painted plaster.

Sanctuary Dome after plaster replacement in 2004.

Work on the dome exterior was sporadic until 2004, when David Yubeta completed
the most recent major repairs. Cracks had formed in the exterior plaster,
and the bright white color of the dome was historically inaccurate. The
first step was to remove the thick layer of paint and old plaster down to
the brick substrate. Historic hand and toe-holds were discovered after the
removal of over 2.6 tons of latex paint and eroded plaster. The hand and
toe-holds begin at the base of the dome and continue to the top. They were
built into the design for easier access to the top of the dome during construction
and plastering of the exterior. Removal of old plaster also revealed that
trapezoid-shaped bricks were laid flat in a circular manner to form the
dome shape. The steps to the lantern are made from diamond-shaped bricks,
some of which were replaced by Pinkley.25

Once the old stabilization plasters/paints were removed, the dome was sprayed
with lime water, which made the dome better able to accept lime plaster.
Next, St. Astiers Natural Hydraulic Lime (NHL 5), imported from France,
was applied. Hydraulic lime sets in water, but it also sets by absorbing
CO2 from the air, therefore, it hardens or sets twice. Three plaster layers
were applied over the fired adobe brick substrate. The final product is
a more subdued grayish-white dome that is historically accurate and consists
of natural materials. The dome exterior is on a 3-5 year maintenance cycle.

Exterior Walls

The exterior of the church has undergone many repairs, and the appearance
of the walls has changed over the decades. Early photos show that the walls
still had holes for scaffolding used during construction of the church.
Over the years, the original scaffolding holes were filled and plastered
over to prevent moisture from entering the walls. In the 1960s, cracks were
sealed with different colored grout and plaster, giving the exterior a jig-saw
puzzle appearance.

West wall of nave/sanctuary exterior in 1972. Note the jigsaw like appearance.

The exterior plaster of the west wall eroded at a quicker rate than other
exterior walls and no original plaster exists on the west wall exterior.
The biggest problem effecting plaster on the east wall exterior has been
moisture entering through cracks and erosion at the base of the wall.

The east wall exterior was first repaired in 1919, and again in 1921.26
Pinkley filled voids at the base of the wall in 1921 and repaired some exposed
adobes in 1928. There is no documentation of repairs to the east wall exterior
between 1928 and 1943. In 1972, a tinted lime plaster wash was applied over
the whole wall to fix the polka-dot appearance caused by different colored
preservation treatments and cement patches. During this time the plaster
mix included Daraweld, mixed with coloring and cement. Several coats of
Daraweld were applied over the years. Chambers (1981) found that non-historic
cement patches averaged five inches thick at the base of the east wall due
to sixty years of cement patching. In comparison, cement on the west wall
exterior averaged only 1.5 inches thick. The cement was removed in 1978.

By 1951, Superintendent Earl Jackson, doubted that any portions of original
plaster still existed in the church.27 However, recent cement
plaster was actually covering original lime plaster in many places. When
Chambers began removing large areas of non-historic cement from the exterior
walls in 1977, he found a pinkish cement plaster overlying what remained
of original lime plaster. While attempting to remove the cement, portions
of original plaster were damaged, but new areas of original plaster were
revealed.

Preservation Mishaps: Area 37a

In Area 37a., archeologist Paul Beaubien uncovered evidence for on-site
production of the church bells in the form of two heating features he called
the furnace and retort. A plaster mould resembling a bell was discovered
near the heating features. Beaubien also found pieces of copper everywhere.
In 1934, the floor of the circular furnace retort was “covered with
a thin layer of copper which had solidified in place.”28
Fifty pounds of copper were collected, tested at the University of Arizona,
and found to contain no silver.

Plaster mould found by Beaubien in 1934. The mould was found twelve feet
east of the retort. Beaubien and George Boundey believed it could be a
bell mould, suggesting that the bells were made at Tumacacori.

According to Beaubien, the features in Area 37a are the remains of a metal
foundry; however, he was unsure that the plaster mould was for a bell. The
idea that the mould was for a bell came from George Boundey who told Beaubien
that he had found a plaster “core mould” of a bell that looked
similar to the piece Beaubien found. Unfortunately, “while he [Boundey]
was conducting some visitors through the mission, another party arrived
and dropped a heavy rock on the object”.29

During re-excavation of the retort in 1970 a piece of burned adobe with
impressions of ridges similar to those found on bells was found. Directly
outside the retort was “a fragment of cast copper which looks like
a bell fragment.”30 In 1971 a cache of copper and slag
shelved in the storage room at Tumacácori labeled “Caywood’s
bell moulds” was found. There were some copper fragments similar to
those exhibited in the museum as bell fragments that were “found in
a cave near Tumacácori.” Presumably, Caywood’s “bell
moulds” came from Area 37a, near the heating feature Beaubien called
the foundry.31

Are heating features, copper pieces, and moulds evidence that the bells
were produced at the mission? Beaubien believed that the Franciscans would
not have placed a foundry so close to the church. However, Mayer et al.
(1971) make a strong argument that the features and artifacts are solid
evidence that the Tumacácori bells were made on-site in Work Area
37a.32 Unfortunately, since the heating features were completely
removed so that plastic sheeting could be laid, we cannot reassess their
function or construction.

The four arches of the bell tower each had a bell. At least one of the
original bells may have been made as early as 1809. When H. M. T. Powell
visited the church in October 1849, he found three bells hanging in the
tower and one inside the church.33 A bell lying inside the church
was marked 1809 and was “dedicated to Señor San Antonio.”34
John Forsyth also noted that the bells bore the date of 1809.35
Daird Brainard, who followed Powell’s visit by one week, states that
“three [of the bells] were still hanging, one had fallen down. Each
had a different sound.”36 Benjamin Hayes also saw three
hanging bells, and one fallen bell during his visit in December 1849, confirming
the accounts of Powell and Brainard.37

The bells were hung in a stationary position and rung by a clapper attached
to rope. Grooves in the bricks of the southern arch were left by the ropes
attached to the clapper that struck the bells. Evidence in 1921 suggested
to Pinkley that the largest bell hung from “a large oak beam”
in the southern arch.38 The present bell tower arch beams appear
to be original. Tree ring cores were drilled in 2005 with the hope of dating
the four arch beams using dendrochronology. The beams were determined to
be Arizona Oak, which cannot be dated using dendrochronology. The origin
of the beams is unknown.

The church bells have not been recovered, but stories of their location
are legends and myth. Pinkley recorded one such legend concerning the lost
church bells:

Shortly after the abandonment of the mission the bells were buried
by the Indian neophytes to prevent their destruction or removal….The
bells were so heavy that their transfer south [to Mexico] would have been
a problem…and I think the padres expected, when conditions grew more
favorable, to return and re-establish the mission at Tumacácori.
The legend was strengthened some years ago when a Mexican or Indian man
turned up in Tucson with two bell clappers which he claimed belonged to
the bells of Tumacácori. [The University of Arizona purchased the
bells clappers and they are housed at the museum]. They [the bell clappers]
had every appearance of being hand hammered and are crudely shaped. The
man claimed that he had dug these up, knowing from the story which had been
handed down through his family where they were buried.39

Despite speculation that the bells were buried for preservation, treasure
hunters who thought they were made of gold and silver probably destroyed
them. Of course, the bells were not made of gold or silver. They were probably
made of a mixture of copper, iron and tin.40 However, the details
of bell production at Tumacácori are obscured by the removal of the
furnace and retort.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank David Yubeta, and Superintendents Ann Rasor and Lisa
Carrico for their support during this project. Special thanks goes to Karen
Mudar for her editorial advice and assistance. Most of all I thank Frank
“Boss” Pinkley for his boundless energy and will to preserve
America’s special places.

Notes/References Cited

Much of the information in this article comes from uncatalogued archives
including unpublished reports, official correspondence, interviews, field
notes, and historic photographs.

15 J. Ross Browne, Adventures in Apache Country: A Tour
Through Arizona and Sonora, with Notes on the Silver Mines of Nevada.
Harper and Brothers, New York, New York, 1871. John R. Forsyth, Journal
of a Trip from Peoria, Illinois to California on the Pacific in 1849,
Peoria Public Library, Peoria, Illinois. The Ruins of San Xavier; Memories
of the old churches of Southern Arizona. “The Most Ancient church
on the Pacific Coast Now an Unsightly Ruin—Story of It’s Bulding—Its
Art Treasures.” New York Times, March 1, 1891. William Wrightson,
Second Annual report Santa Rita Mining Company. (March 19, 1860),
pp. 14-15. Special Collections, University of Arizona Library, Tucson.